1484950
1
Ph.D., Candidate, Doctoral Program in Educational Administration, Department of Educational Policy, Management and leadership, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
2 Assoc. Professor, Department of Educational Policy, Management and leadership, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn
University, Thailand
3
Asst. Professor, Department of Educational Policy, Management and leadership, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
DEVELOPMENT OF A SUPPORTING MODEL FOR PRIVATE BASIC EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Wanicha Pataraprasit1 Pruet Siribanpitak2
Chayapim Usaho3
This research was financially sponsored by
THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY OF CHULALONGKORN
UNIVERSITY FUND (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund)
Abstract: This research aimed to present the states and
problems of supporting private basic education Institutions from the government and to develop a proposed model for supporting private basic education institutions in Thailand. The research methodology compromised in 5 steps. 1st Step: Documentary analysis to develop a research framework. 2nd Step: Documentary analysis and survey research about the states and problems of supporting private basic education Institutions. 3rd Step: Construct the proposed model. 4th Step: Evaluate propriety and feasibility of the model by expert judgments. 5th Step: Adjust and scrutinize the proposed model. The research findings are summarized as follow:
1. The governmental supports to private institutions are not equal to public institutions that bring to oligopoly market and unfair competitions.
2. The study of the states of supporting private basic education Institutions finds that the government supported at the low level all, vice versa the government should support at highest all in the statistic significant different of 0.05. The important problems are the supporting in the investment expenditures and academic supports.
3. The proposed model for Supporting Private Basic Education Institutions is ―The Integrative Model‖ which comprises of 2 components (1) The integration of Demand-size financing and Supply-side financing (2) The integration of In Cash and In Kind supports. Demand-size financing consists of education coupon and health promotion for students. Supply-side financing is the infrastructure developing funds, teachers‘ salary coupon, teachers‘ welfare, the academic funds for teacher and the honor award for institutes, the school executive and teacher.
Research Suggestion: The next should be a research for the Strategies of Supporting Private Basic Education Institutions to find out the key success factors.
Keywords: Supporting Model, Private Basic Education
Institutions
Introduction
The private education plays role in developing and participating of education. In each country, the private education is different depending on the development, definition, types, policies and regulations. Now the privatization of education and educational vouchers are interested to resolve the limitation of state‘s resources and funds. (Odden and Picus, 2004)
Governments around the world spend significant resources on education. While such outlays have led to a tremendous expansion of schooling, they have not reduced the level of disadvantage for many groups, especially those in rural areas, including the poorest of the poor, women, ethnic or religious minorities and indigenous peoples. Even in countries where the overall enrolment rate is high, there are still areas with little access to education. Often this is the poorest segment of the population. In some countries there is a sizeable portion of the least wealthy where access to schooling is slight, if not at the primary school level, then certainly at the secondary school level. In all cases, even at the primary school age level, the gap in enrolment rates between the poorest and the richest is high. At the secondary school level, the poorest 20 percent are especially disadvantaged. In an attempt to improve the delivery of basic services and the equity with which public funds are disbursed, some governments are experimenting with new ways of channeling public funds. One such mechanism is demand-side financing, whereby public funds are channeled directly to individuals or to institutions based on the characteristics of users such as income. (Patrinos, 2007)
During the globalization, we must improve the quality of Thai people rapidly to enhance the competitiveness with other countries. The reform of education is an important strategy to develop Thailand in
Knowledge-based society. (Chantawanicha, Amrung
quoted in Office of the Education council; OEC, 2006) The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2550 (2007) and the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (2nd National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002) mention in the provision of education that all individuals shall have equal rights and opportunities to receive basic education provided by the State for the duration of at least 12 years. Such education provided on a nationwide basis, shall be of quality and free of charge. The students‘ subsidies must grant to public and private basic education institutions equally. The private sector can
provide all level of education independently, autonomy academic management and get the financial fund, tax abatement, academic support and other educational privileges granted from the state. Despites the public policies, the regulations and implementations become so tough and obstacle to the autonomy and agility of private administration. Then the participation of private basic education has declined from 30% to 18-20% in the past 10 years. (Office of the Basic Education Commission: OBEC, 2008; Office of the Private Education Commission: OPEC, 2008)
OEC (2005) had studied about educational expenditures and found that the private institutions saved about 30,000 million Baht of the education budgets (10.43%) each year or 531,728.8 million Baht in 22 years from 1990 to 2012. In addition, the first educational quality assessment during 1999-2005 by the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) was performed in 35,247 basic educational institutions; it found that educational quality of the private institutions was higher than the public institutions (ONESQA, 2006). These indicate the efficiency and efficacy of the private institutions.
The cabinet endorsed the improved National Education Plan (2009-2016), as proposed by the Ministry of Education (MOE), and it has assigned related agencies to use the plan as direction for education development within the given timeframe. The compilation of the National Education Plan was based on the principle of sufficiency economy that focuses on moderation, rationality, and up-to-date knowledge, all of these aims for sustainable development and the well-being of the Thai people. It encourages integration with "people" at the center of development that is "balanced" between economic, social, political, and environmental. The educational reform integrates religions, arts, cultures, sports, and education on every level. The students‘ achievement should be 50% or higher. All levels and all types of education should have external quality assurance to ensure improvement of educational quality and standards by the National Education Standard and Quality Assessment (ONESQA). All Thai should obtain education up to 12 years (Now only 8.7 years). The private sector has been encouraged by 35% from 20% in educational participation. MOE should develop the appropriate and fair strategies congruently with the supporting for private basic education institutions. (The cabinet‘s Synopsis, January 5th, 2010)
As mentioned, the supporting of private basic education institutions is very important and alleviates educational budgets. Consistently with the government intent consolidates educational reform efforts of effective resources and budget management. Thus, a development of a supporting model for private basic education institutions in Thailand will contribute new approaches to the administrative policy-making to the government.
Purposes of the Study
1. To present the states and problems of supporting private basic education Institutions from the government.
2. To develop a proposed model for supporting private basic education institutions in Thailand.
Methodology
The research methodology was compromised five steps to develop a proposed model for supporting private basic education institutions in Thailand based on the propriety and feasibility of the educational administration principles as follows:
Firstly the documentary analysis from theories, principles and researches was done to conceptualize a research framework relevant to model development, the supporting of public and private basic education institutions model and the policy-making educational laws.
Then the researcher explored the states and problems of supporting private basic education Institutions which consisted of two parts. Part 1: The documentary research by the content analysis. Part 2: The survey research from private basic education institutions supported by the government and instructed in 2008. The sampling sizes were set by Yamane‘s table at 95% confidence levels. The questionnaires were sent to administrations, teachers and parents of the private basic education institutions by multi-stage sampling vary from the location, size and educational level of the schools.
After the proposed model was constructed by the synthetic and analytic data from the prior steps, it was evaluated propriety and feasibility by the expert judgments. Five groups of the fifteen experts consisted of the educational experts, the chief executive officers of OBEC, the committee-administrators of private basic education institutions association, the administrators and the parents of private basic education institutions. Finally, the model was adjusted and scrutinized.
Conceptual Framework
The documentary analysis from theories, principles and researches was done to conceptualize a research framework relevant to four parts:
1. The principles of educational management ―All for education‖ and ―education for all‖ policies provide the quality basic education at least 12 years without expenses to enhance the opportunity of education. The government must grant the educational budgets as the sustainable development. The participations of public and private basic education are under the supervision of the government based on the social equality and human resource development that can compete in worldwide. (The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2550 (2007); the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (2nd National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002))
Figure 1: Conceptual framework of a Supporting Model for Private Basic Education Institutions
The principles of education budgeting must consider about the equality, equity (horizontal and vertical equity), adequacy, participation, liberty, efficiency, effectiveness and practicality. (Wiruchai N., 2000; Guthrie, 2007)
3. The educational financing
Brimley, Jr. and Garfield (2002) mention about the educational financing comprises of demand-side and supply-side financing. Demand-side financing is a way in which the government can finance private consumption of certain goods and services. In contrast to supply-side financing, where public funds go directly to suppliers, under demand-side financing consumers (or in the case of education, parents or students) receive a certain amount of money for specific expenditures.
4. The educational supporting
The Bureau of the Budget (2005) and OBEC (2005) specify the educational supporting to In Cash and In Kind supports. In Cash, supports are operation expenditures and investment expenditures. In Kind, supports are academic supports and the other financial contributions.
The conceptual framework is summarized as in Figure 1.
Results
1) Results of the states and problems of supporting private basic education institutions
1.1 Documentary analysis
The governmental supports to private institutions are not equal to public institutions neither in cash-in kind nor demand-side and supply-side financing. Mostly, the governmental financing is Supply-side. The supporting private basic education institutions comprised of (1) the operation expenditures; Basic educational expense is accounted only 70% of public educational arrangement that is insufficient for the quality education management.
The subsidies for teachers in private institutions‘ salary are based on teacher/student ratio which not enough. Besides that the teachers are not received the fringe benefits, monetary incentives such as accrediting position, cost of living, and medical expenses which unfair comparing to the teachers of public institutions. These could have negative impact on motivation and quit of private school teachers during the academic year. (2) The investment expenditures provided only the office appliances, teaching and learning equipment. The funding loan for land, construction and other investments of private institutions are limited and insufficient. (3) The academic supports, the administrators and teachers have not been granted equally to the public school because the organizational structure of the MOE is an obstacle. In addition, OBEC grants not enough budgets for teacher training. (4) The other financial contributions; the legislation, rules and regulations for private institutions are obstacle that might be the non-participation in the policy-making and educational plans with OBEC and Education Service Area Office (EAO).
1.2 Survey research
The survey research was 2,587 private basic education institutions supported by the government and instructed in 2009. The sampling sizes were set by Yamane‘s table at 95% confidence levels. The questionnaires were sent to 353 administrations, 706 teachers and 706 parents by multi-stage sampling vary from the location (Bangkok, Northern, Middle, Northeastern and Southern Part of Thailand), size (small, medium and large size) and educational level (Kindergarten, Primary and Secondary level) of the school that detailed as follows:
1.2.1 Opinions to the actual and suggested governmental supports
Overall the actual governmental supports are low (X=2.29, S.D.=.66) both in cash (operation and investment
expenditures) and in kind (academic and other supports) contribution. Vice versa, the suggested governmental supports are the highest all (X=4.47, S.D.=.687) and
significant difference at statistical level 0.05. The most important problems are the supporting in investment and academic supports.
Regarding to the actual governmental supports, it finds that the lowest level was investment supports (X=2.60, S.D.=.802), followed by academic supports (X=2.32, S.D.=.659), operation expenditures (X=2.22, S.D.=.814) and lastly the other contributions (X=2.00, S.D.=.953). On the other hand, the suggested governmental supports, the highest level of contribution is academic supports (X=4.56, S.D.=.688), followed by the other
contributions (X=4.48, S.D.=.645), operation expenditures (X=4.46, S.D.=.715) and lastly investment expenditures (X=4.38, S.D.=.995).
Comparing the difference of the actual and suggested governmental supports, it finds that the most difference is the investment supports (range=2.38), the academic supports (range=2.34), the operation expenditures (range=2.14) and lastly the other contributions (range=1.88)
1.2.2 Opinions to the present supporting of private basic education institutions from government
(1) The operating expenditures
- Per capital basic education expenses: Most private institutions agree with per capital basic education expenses at moderate in all educational levels (X=2.96, S.D.= .810) and suggest that it should be equal supporting of public and private basic education institutions. Withholding basic education expenses would affect crucial to the financial administration. The monthly payment of per capital basic education expenses by the government was agreed in 74.6%. However, the others suggest providing payment twice a year to facilitate the effective budget management. Beside 18.8% of private institutions, suggest changing the basic education expenses to the educational voucher that granted direct to the parents.
- Salary and remuneration: Most private basic education institutions (54.9%) are not agreeing with the present supports of teachers‘ salary and remuneration, and need equal supports as the teachers in public institutions. Salary adjustment (increase/decrease) should be in accordance with the manpower and promotion under the bureaucratic regulation. The Comptroller General‘s Department, Ministry of Finance should be responsible for transferring the salary directly to teachers‘ account.
- Medical expense: Opinions to the current medical expense (only 100,000 Baht for individuals exclude families from the Assistance Fund Commission‘s regulations are not agreed from most private basic education institutions (93.8%). The suggestion of medical expenses should include their families equal as the teachers in public institutions.
(2) The investment expenditures
The minority private basic education institutions (18%) have ever applied for ―the supporting fund for private basic education institutions‖. And only 5.5% had achieved the loan. Major loan objectives are school building (28.3%), followed by repairing the construction (10.5%), class and laboratory improvement (10.1%). Most private institutions (92.6%) need the cooperating soft loan (low interest rate and interest-free period) from banks of the state or other private financing to compensate the inadequacy of the supporting fund.
(3) The academic supports
The private basic education institutions have unequal supervision and promotion by OPEC and EAO in academic supports compared to the public basic education institutions.
(4) Other contributions
The legislation and regulations should facilitate the private arrangement, private participation in policy-making on educational planning and admission plan together with EAO and OPEC.
2) The development of a supporting model for private basic education institutions
Results of the development of a supporting model for private basic education institutions consisted of four parts. Summarized the model as follow:
Part 1: Name and sources
1.1 Name: ―The Integrative Model for Supporting Private Basic Education Institutions‖
1.2 Background and significance 1.3 Concepts and principles:
Concepts and principles on the development of the integrative model for supporting private basic educational Institutions depend on the principles of educational management, the principles of education budgeting educational Financing and supporting. ―All for education‖ and ―education for all‖ policies provide the quality basic education at least 12 years without expenses to enhance the opportunity of education. The government must grant the educational budgets as the sustainable development. The participations of public and private basic education are under the supervision of the government based on the social equality and human resource development that can compete in worldwide. The principles of education budgeting must consider about the equality, equity (horizontal and vertical equity), adequacy, participation, liberty, efficiency, effectiveness and practicality. (Wiruchai N., 2000; Guthrie, 2007)
1.4 Objectives of the model
(1) To provide the quality education for all students (2) To develop fair competition of public and private basic education institutions equally.
(3) To educate and supervise the private institutions‘ teachers affecting quality education.
Part 2: Components of the model
The proposed model for supporting private basic education institutions is ―The Integrative Model‖ which comprises of 2 components (1) The integration of
Demand-Figure 2: The Integrative Model for Supporting Private Basic Education Institutions
Part 1: Name and sources of the model
1. Name: “The Integrative Model” for Supporting Private Basic Education Institutions 1.2 Background and significance
1.3 Concept and principles 1.4 Objectives of the model Part 2: Components of the model
Supporting Demand-Side Financing Supply-Side Financing
In Cash 1.Education Voucher
1. The infrastructure developmental fund 2. Teachers‘ salary Voucher
3. Teachers‘ remuneration
In kind 2.Students‘ health promotion
4. The academic fund 5. The honor awards
Part 3: Implementation of the model
1. Implementation for Ministry of Education
2. Implementation for Supporting Private Basic Education Institutions
Part 4: Factors of the model implementation
1. Conditions
2. Key success factors
size financing and Supply-side financing (2) The integration of In Cash and In Kind supports.
Demand-side financing consists of educational voucher and students‘ health promotion. Whereas, Supply-side financing consists of the infrastructure development fund (soft loan), teachers‘ salary voucher, teachers‘ remuneration, educational personnel, the academic funds for administrators and teachers, and the honor awards for administrators, teachers and private institutions.
Educational voucher is an innovation of channeling public funds in Thailand. It changes the past Supply-side financing to demand-side financing which grant students directly to empowering the education choices.
Part 3: Implementation 3.1 MOE Implementation:
The government should encourage private investment by legislate the national education laws and policies reached a turning point in its historical development. MOE and Bureau of Budget should enact ―the Basic Education Funding Committee‖ for equal
supporting public and private basic education institutions in both demand-side and supply-side financing, In Cash and In Kind supports for fair competition.
3.2 Private Institutions Implementation: Private Institutions should provide the information and technology data of educational expenditures that relates to academic achievement. That data can analyze the efficiency and efficacy of educational utilization.
Part 4: Factors of the model implementation
4.1 Conditions: The state policy has provided public education without private participation. Nevertheless, private budgeting is more effective and efficiency than public budgeting.
4.2 Key success factors: (1) Changing the primary role of MOE and EAO as the promoter, regulator and policy-maker for quality education in equal supporting the budget, academic, and other areas to both public and private institutions. (2) Changing the public attitudes that private institutions should be attuned as educational alliance rather than competitors. (3) School mapping to remedy the competency of educational arrangement by supporting private investment arrangement that is effective financing. (4) Private institutions should administrate the educational resources and budgets efficiently, transparency and responsibility as good governance principles to achieve the educational quality and standard in sustainable development.
―The Integrative Model for Supporting Private Basic Education Institutions‖ as a whole can be seen as Figure 2:
Discussions
1. The states and problems of supporting private basic education institutions
1.1 The governmental supports to private institutions are not equal to public institutions that bring to oligopoly market and unfair competitions. The result is consistent with Sukontasap S. et al (2008) which found that states and problems in basic private education institutions in respect of budget, academic, personnel, and general
management resulted in the declined private participation. Therefore, it is necessary for government to provide the policy and implementation for supporting the private institutions that were more effective and efficiency than public institutions.
1.2 The actual governmental supports are low all both in cash (operation and investment expenditures) and in kind (academic and other supports) contributions. Vice versa, the suggested governmental supports are the highest all and significant difference at statistical level 0.05. The important problems are the supporting in investment expenditures and academic support. Then the government should encourage soft loan (low interest rate and interest-free period) from banks of the state or other private financing to compensate the inadequacy of the supporting fund for private basic education institutions. Including the academic supports should be equal to public and private institutions by supervision and promotion from OPEC and EAO.
1.3 The study of private education expenditures finds that
(1) The expenditures are varying on location, size, and education level of institutions. Concerned to the educational level; per capita of private basic education expenditure are lowest about 11,697 Baht for primary school, 11,714 Baht for preschool and 17,546 Baht for high school student. Compared to the study of the Bureau of Budget (2007); it found that per capita of public basic education expenditure was 15,746 Baht. The lowest was 12,606 Baht for high school, 15,949 Baht for preschool, 16,140 Baht for junior high school, and 17,403 Baht for primary school student. Private institution can provide lower education expenditures than public with better quality. According to the National Institute of Educational Testing Service, it revealed that students of private institutions have better academic achievement that indicated the effectiveness and efficiency of the private school.
The subsidy for private basic education expenses in 2008 was 6,982 7,152 10,012 and 10,342 Baht per capita for preschool, primary school, junior high school and high school student. Comparing to the actual expenses from this research, the subsidy is not enough but private institutions could provide good quality education because of the effective administration, the student fee and the resource mobilization from parents.
Concern to the school size; the medium-size school has the lowest education expenditures. It might be equilibrium between student and the resource utilization. Thus, the government should subsidize different varying to the school size. Besides that the small-sized and large-sized could encourage the effective resource utilization.
The multi-level educational institutions (such as the cooperating preschool and elementary education) have lower education expenditures than the single-level institutions. These might be the effective human and resource utilization. Then it supposes to encourage the
potential single-level institutions providing more level of education.
2. The development of a supporting model for private basic education institutions
2.1 Since concepts and principles of the integrative model depend on the principles of educational management, the principles of education budgeting educational Financing and supporting. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B. E. 2550 (2007) and the National Education Act B. E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (2nd National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002) mention in the provision of education that all individuals shall have equal rights and opportunities to receive basic education provided by the State for the duration of at least 12 years. Such education, provided on a nationwide basis, shall be of quality and free of charge. The principles of education budgeting must consider about the equality, equity (horizontal and vertical equity), adequacy, participation, liberty, efficiency, effectiveness and practicality (Wiruchai N., 2000; Guthrie, 2007). Then the government must grant the educational budgets as the sustainable development. The participations of public and private basic education are under the supervision of the government based on the social equality and human resource development that can compete in worldwide.
2.2 ―The integrative model‖ for supporting the basic private education consisted of two components (In Cash and In Kind support, Demand-side and Supply-side financing. The model has changed the financing from supply-side to demand-side (via the educational voucher) to empower the educational decision of parents and students. These cause the fair competition in educational management between public and private institutions because the quality schools could attract more students. As Guthrie (2007) commented about the liberty for school choice and awareness of parental participation to take the surcharge fund (the ability to pay). Nevertheless, Supply-side financing should be supplied for the horizontal equity to guarantee the educational accessibility of all students. (Richupan S., et al., 2007)
These are corresponding to the study of The International Academy of Education and the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) by Patrinos H. A. (2007). Demand-side financing initiatives in education have been implemented in a number of countries. A number of these have been put in place to address the needs of families with children at risk of non-attending school. Most involve cash payments to low-income families with children who regularly attend school. The transfers are contingent on the condition of regular attendance. The benefit levels are intended to offset some or most of the opportunity costs of sending children to school. In the best examples, the subsidies vary by grade and gender of the child to address higher opportunity costs as the child gets older and in some countries the higher tendency of girls to drop out. In most cases, demand-side programs are associated with increased school attendance rates and lower school dropout rates. They can also be used
in some cases to improve learning outcomes and to pursue other important goals such as gender equity and longer-term poverty reduction. The benefits of demand-side financing are said to include schooling gains, in terms of
higher enrolments, attendance, completion and
achievement. Demand-side financing should also make it easier to institute school choice plans. Relating resources to the ultimate beneficiaries‘ students and their families and close monitoring of those resources could lead to considerable efficiency gains to the system, thus increasing the cost-effectiveness of education programs.
Recommendations
1. Suggestion for research implementation 1.1 The policy suggestion
The results have revealed that the governmental supports to private basic education institutions are not equal to public institutions that bring to oligopoly market and unfair competitions. Then the genuine and effective private education reform must be designated as national agenda. The mobilization of resources and investment for private education, the allocation of budget and budget management are necessary mechanisms to consolidate educational reform efforts. To make these mechanisms effective, new laws and regulations as well as new approaches to administration must be addressed equal to both public and private institutions.
1.2 The practical suggestion
(1) ―The integrative model‖ for supporting private basic education institutions has changed the financing from supply-side to demand-side (via the educational voucher). It‘s suggested that ―the pilot project‖ for this model should be initiated in the appropriate Educational Service Area Office.
(2) Every institution should provide the information and technology data of educational expenditures that related to academic achievement that can analyze the efficiency and efficacy of utilization.
2. Suggestion for future research
As the integrative model for supporting private basic education institutions initially is derived from this research, it is suggested that the next research should develop ―the proposed education administration strategies for supporting private basic education institutions‖ to find out the key success factors. These will extend the greater success implementation of the integrative model at national level.
References
Brimley, Jr. and Garfield. (2002). Financing education in
a Climate of Change. 8thed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Guthrie, J.W. Springer, M.G. Rolle, R.A., and Houck, E.A. (2004). Modern Education Finance and Policy. Boston: Pearson Education.
Odden, A.R., and Picus, L.O. (2004). School Finance: A
Policy Perspective. 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC). (2009). Statistics of the educational information,
the office of the basic education commission in the Year 2008. Bangkok: Office of Policy and Basic
Education Planning.
Office of the Education council (OEC). (2005). The
research of the educational budgeting between Thailand and other countries. Bangkok: Prigwan
Publishing.
Office of the Education council (OEC). (2006). The
research of the new educational budgeting formula. Bangkok: Prigwan Publishing.
Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA). (2007). The first external
quality assurance of basic education Institutions in B.E.2542-2548. (2001-2006). Bangkok: Prigwan
Publishing.
Office of the Private Education Commission (OPEC). (2006). The standard and condition of basic
expenditures in supporting private basic education institutions. Bangkok: The Teachers
Council Publishing.
Office of the Private Education Commission (OPEC). (2009). Statistics of the private basic education
Institutions information, in the Year 2008.
Bangkok: Office of Information and technology of OPEC.
Patrinos, Harry Anthony. Demand-Side Financing in
Education. IIEP. [Online]. 2007. Available from:
www.iiep.unesco.org, [2008, August 6].
Richupan, Somchai et al. (2007). The financial project for
basic education. Bangkok: Papprim Publishing.
Secretariat of the cabinet. The cabinet meeting on Tuesday
5, January 2010. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.thaigov.go.th [2010, February 9]. Secretariat of the Senate. (2008). Constitution of the
kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007). Bangkok:
data and law information.
Secretariat of the Senate. (2003). National Education Act
B.E.2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B. E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: data and
law information.
Sukontasap, Snanchit et al. (2008). The synthetic research
for promoting the participation of the private basic education Institutions. Office of the
Education council, Bangkok: Prigwan Publishing.
Wiruchai, Nongluch. (2000). The research and
development model for the budgeting of basic education Institutions, the research project of
Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC).
